Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gurnow


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Michael Gurnow

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article does not make a case for subject's notability. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  17:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep: Although the author is represented by a small press, both of his books have received substantial recognition. In fact, his book about Edward Snowden has been listed in the Wikipedia entry about Snowden under the Further Reading section. As for his novel, Nature's Housekeeper, the forward was written by Buddy Hufaker, the president of the Aldo Leopold Foundation, an organization which was founded by the environmentalist's children in 1982. He has also received kudos from Survivorman Les Stroud and Ishmael author Daniel Quinn. In addition, several essays and articles penned by Mr. Gurnow have been used as source material for a variety of Wikipedia entries: H.P. Lovecraft, William S. Burroughs, D. Harlan Wilson, Roger Ebert, Robinson Crusoe, Waiting for Godot, Existentialism, Tor (anonymity network), and a handful of film write-ups. BrocktonBomber (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Keep: Not sure why User:Orangemike is objecting. As article's contents state, Gurnow's work has been referenced in the UC Davis Law Review and in a Routledge anthology. Also contained within the article is mention that his writing has been publicly praised by Pulitzer-winner Roger Ebert, million-copy selling author and Oprah guest Daniel Quinn , and Discovery Channel's Les Stroud. He has been interviewed on various national radio stations by such Wiki-recognized names as Mancow Muller, Howie Carr , and Jeff Crouere , as well as by Kevin J. Williams, director of the documentary Fear of a Black Republican, for Politisite. Furthermore, his work is listed on the EBSCO Information Services database. (As for WorldCat holding libraries, his first book is in 115 collections worldwide ). Lastly, Gurnow has been elected into Poets & Writers (a writer must be elected into PW.org by a majority vote ). SnowdenFan &#124;  Talk


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 00:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 00:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * delete this writer has published 2 books. Each  book  has generated a write up in this local paper, the Southeast Missourian, and nothing in any other RS.  as User:JJMC89 points out, the books were also mentioned once on twitter and once on a fellow writer's blog.  The only remaining claim to notability is that each of 2 academics dropped a footnote to one of Gurnow's books,  The Edward Snowden Affair.  However, merely having a couple of footnotes....E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I had missed the movie review thing.  Still seems too thin a bunch of reeds to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory Please do not violate Wiki policy of deleting external citations before entering into the deletion discussion in order to state there are no reliable sources. Returning to your comments, 1) If the academic citations were "catch-all" overviews, you'd have a fine point, but they're not. They are exacting studies of the subject Gurnow wrote about, ie., a law professor (Kwoka) AND the Harvard of British presses, Routledge, deemed his first book worthy of including it in their research.  2) Wiki does not ask for volume but quality of sources. Gurnow's second book was applauded by a well-known television personality (Stroud) and a bestselling author who appeared on Oprah (Quinn). 3) Yet, going with "more is better," as stated in the original article (prior to your removal of sources), the introduction of his second book was written by the president of one of the largest conservationist/environmental non-profits in America, the Aldo Leopold Foundation, Jennifer Pharr Davis also praised the work, and the Wilderness Skills Institute positively reviewed the novel . 4) As for a lack of media coverage, why did you ignore my documented citations that Gurnow has been interviewed on numerous national radio programs about his writing? 5) Lastly, and returning to quality sources, not volume - Given that he won a Pulitzer, I don't see how Roger Ebert's statement that Gurnow's work in the field is "very admirable" is anything to sneeze at. SnowdenFan (talk)
 * reply - Almost everything you use as an argument for retention is a violation of WP:NOTINHERITED alias WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. I've sold books to Charlton Heston, Tony Shaloub, and Tony Bennett; that doesn't make me notable. I was on Ben Stein's show, and he said I had a nice singing voice; that doesn't make my singing notable. We need substantive coverage of Gurnow as Gurnow, by reliable sources; and that's what we don't see any sign of here. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply to Reply: Yep, you hit the nail on the head, "almost everything," meaning the national radio interviews (credible and reliable - as I outlined earlier, i.e., conducted by hosts recognized on Wiki), which focus on Gurnow qua Gurnow (or, in your terms, "Gurnow as Gurnow") qualifies under Wiki policy.  Furthermore, your analogy with Stein commenting on your signing voice is a false comparison:  It would legitimize your stature as a singer if Stein was a recognized singer, but he isn't; conversely, Gurnow was recognized by authorities in the field he has written upon (Quinn/Stroud)  SnowdenFan (talk)

Delete (a message from the subject of this article): Thanks guys, but no. I appreciate that someone would take the time to create a Wiki page about me and am humbled that others have come to my defense yet, returning the favor in kind, I’ll openly state all the hub-bub isn’t necessary. I have a personal website for such purposes and my publisher has set up more than enough social media for the same reason.

Being in the public eye, I’d rather not have to potentially contend with http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/rachel-johnson-in-the-grip-of-wikipedias-orange-mike-8613948.html. Thank you. M. Gurnow


 * Reply: Sorry to see the subject himself would like to throw in the towel, especially since I feel the "case" by Orange Mike  is far from solid. His (Orange Mike's) rebuttal about selling books to various celebrities and being lauded by Ben Stein for his vocal abilities were, as SnowdenFan pointed out, "false comparison[s]." Now, had Orange Mike written the books purchased by Charlton Heston, Tony Shalhoub, and Tony Bennett, then there would be a case for notability -- especially if those three gentlemen had provided praise for the writings, as Daniel Quinn and Les Stroud did for Mr. Gurnow's work. BrocktonBomber (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * reply No, no, if my reasoning is weak, then the article should stay; but where are the links to the NPR interviews about Gurnow? I find a link to a political blog, with an interview about Gurnow's Snowden book; but that's about the book, not Gurnow. (And my analogy was to your, "Gurnow was praised by somebody you never heard of who leads a foundation set up by the obscure children of somebody who is genuinely notable; so that makes Gurnow notable by inheritance and contagion.") -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply to a reply to a reply: What you’re essentially implying by stating the interviews don’t focus on Gurnow, but his work, is that Picasso isn’t noteworthy in-and-of himself; only his paintings are noteworthy. Art doesn't exist in a vacuum; a person's art is what makes him or her notable. You can’t separate an artist from his or her work anymore than you can interview a book, which is what you are saying has taken place with the Gurnow interviews since he’s talking about his writing and not himself. In short, you're wanting a radio or print discussion about an artist, but one that doesn't mention his or her work. What would be the topic? Conjecture as to what the person eats for breakfast? (On that note, and if you want to be technical, listen to the interviews: In almost every one, the interviewer inquires about how Gurnow, as an artist, created the books).

'''The credential is that a person appear on a noteworthy medium, Gurnow has and several are clearly listed in the article (Wiki-recognized radio programs and hosts, no less). Done deal.''' Nowhere is it required that the subject must be excluded from the discussion, which is what you're demanding. That said, examples such as these have also been clearly provided in the original Wiki entry, cf. Quinn, Stroud, Politisite. For good measure, I'll go ahead and add in a 2014 book review by Pure Politics.

Your inheritance/contagion argument is also skewed: A foundation needn't be chartered by a notable name to be noteworthy. The Aldo Leopold Foundation itself is noteworthy in that it is one of the largest, most influential conservation non-profits in America. (Using your line of reasoning that only Aldo was noteworthy and, by deduction, anything done in his name but not by him, i.e., his non-noteworthy children who started the Foundation, isn’t credible is analogous to declaring that the King Center for Nonviolent Social Change isn't notable because Martin Luther King Jr. didn't start it.) Clearly, the bottom line is the impact of the group, not who it is named after. Hufftaker, in-and-of himself, might not be a household name but, as president of the Aldo Leopold Foundation (since Aldo's ghost might have trouble typing up an introduction), he is representing the influential conservation group and, as such and by proxy, the Aldo Leopold Foundation deemed Gurnow’s novel worthy of being introduced.

NOTE: I have added the Pure Politics interview, included those brought up during this discussion that weren't in the original entry, as well as updated Gurnow's publication listing (there was quite a bit missing, including several cover stories for national magazines.) SnowdenFan (talk)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relist, though this unattractive discussion is not likely to get better-looking. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC) I highly doubt that the request was made by Gurnow himself. Look at the timing of the request in context of the discussion and the account itself - a SPA. The subject has an IT background and wrote a book on computer security. It is reasonable to assume that if that were him, he'd have at least coded his post properly. SnowdenFan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - subject has requested deletion, and notability is rather slim. No harm done leaning over backwards with BLPs. Kraxler (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's pure speculation, somebody signed M. Gurnow. Let's WP:Assume good faith Kraxler (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - subject has requested deletion, which I take on good faith. (IP address he used is from his state. Seems silly to argue it's a fake post. Signature claim is silly, as it's exclusive to Wiki.) Subject does have some coverage etc, but not enough yet for GNG, seems WP:TOOSOON  —Мандичка YO 😜 22:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Krax and Wikimandia/Мандичка: This is the reason I stated I doubted it was him:  The IP is NOT from his homestate, which is Missouri. The IP was out of Kansas (2 sites reporting) or Chicago (2 reporting): http://166.175.186.160.ipaddress.com/ and http://en.utrace.de/ip-address/166.175.186.52 or https://db-ip.com/166.175.186.52 and http://www.iplocationtools.com/166.175.186.52.html.

Also, as of 8/6/15, the author has recently listed on his personal website two more media interviews in the next two weeks, one a NY radio station, WCWP, and and television interview on a Fox Broadcasting Company affiliate, KBSI. Regardless, as I outlined previously, under Wiki protocol, Gurnow already qualifies under the notability guidelines (see previous comments). SnowdenFan (talk)


 * For all we know, Gurnow may be travelling in Chicago or Kansas, or anywhere else, and an IP tracker which returns two different states for the same IP's location is either mistaken or the IP is dynamic enough to move around the states. As to his notability, of the 29 refs in the article 15 are by Gurnow, and many others are not independent like amazon and his publisher, the second book review external link is dead, and here you come up with Twitter as a reference. No need to WP:BOMBARD this. Kraxler (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Good points: 1) "For all we know, Gurnow may be travelling."  As you noted, we should follow Wiki policy and issue benefit of the doubt, meaning WP:Assume good faith.  The dynamic IP is most likely due to him being on tour (his newest title came out in May).  He mentions his various speaking invitations on his blog (http://primitivarum.weebly.com/blog).  2)  On your note that 15 references are by Gurnow:  The subject is a writer. It is difficult to claim his work has appeared in X publication if we don't list/display what he's authored (it would be by him in respect to references if these appeared on his website, but they don't: They're are on individual, independent websites such as Fifth Estate, American Atheist, Word Riot, Literary Kicks, etc.  As for the Amazon sales citations:  Not sure how this isn't independent - they are screencaps taken from Amazon.com proving his books are international bestsellers (http://primitivarum.weebly.com/sales.html and http://primitivarum.weebly.com/sales_ii.html); if you are implying they are fabricated (again, we're told to WP:Assume good faith), then they are there for the world - including Amazon - to see.  If Gurnow or his publisher were to misrepresent the world's largest bookseller's data, it would make him/it liable to legal action. Doesn't seem likely. 3) As for your comment, "And here you come with Twitter as a reference":  This is from the official, validated Twitter account of a well-known television personality, Les Stroud.  It allows authentication of a blurb which would otherwise only be sourced by the subject's publisher.  4) Not sure what you are talking about in respect to the last cited book review:  The link is active.

Again, under Wiki policy, his interviews (many conducted by noted radio hosts and one by a famous director) alone qualify Gurnow under the notability guidelines, atop his recognition by noted authors, television personalities, Pulitzer winners and environmental groups. SnowdenFan (talk)
 * Primary sources can not establish notability. Period. WP:GNG requires "significan coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". I wish people would just read the guideline instead of writing WP:Walls of text with lengthy arguments which are totally beside the point. You keep confusing "importance"/"achievements" with "notability". They are different things, just read the guideline, please. Kraxler (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Piles of self-published sources and interviews in non-notable venues do not meet the threshold for inclusion spelled out at WP:N. If the subject is requesting deletion then it'd be a slam-dunk per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, but we cannot accept random IP users claiming to be the subject.  If someone wishes to encourage the IP to file a request via WP:OTRS, that is the way to proceed. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I feel as if this discussion has become a broken record. Ignoring that we're debating the legitimacy of an internationally bestselling author who has been translated, anthologized, referenced at international conferences and in law and literary journals, again, Gurnow has been cited, interviewed or given accolades by numerous people/sources, all of which have their own Wiki pages, thus are hardly "non-notable venues," thereby constituting "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject": Pulitzer-winner Roger Ebert, Les Stroud, Daniel Quinn, Jennifer Pharr Davis, Jeff Crouere of WGSO and Howie Carr of WRKO. And, as I have also already stated, he's due to appear on WCWP and the Fox Broadcasting Network in the next 10 days (as listed on his personal website). SnowdenFan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is not established by name-dropping or attention-seeking. Kraxler (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find little worth in engaging with users whose name contains one of "fan", "truth", or "anti-", as it is clear they're not here for encyclopedia-building. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply I first started reading Gurnow's work several years ago, back when he was writing reviews for horror films. His postings on The Horror Review were many, something like 300-400, if memory serves. Unfortunately, it would take some time (like probably a full day, at least) to tally exactly how many since the site was sold a while back and the old reviews were all “archived,” and annoyingly so. Whereas they used to be accessible under the individual reviewer's moniker, all of the reviews have been submitted under Horror Bob's real name (Robert Brodmerkel), so now one has to click on every single review and scroll to the bottom of it to identify who wrote it. There are approximately 178 pages of reviews (mostly past, some present) with about five reviews per page. These include books as well as films. Like I said, it would take a substantial amount of time to correctly tally Gurnow's input in this endeavor, and it is time I do not have, especially since the effort would (more than likely) be written off as “non-notable” due to the following reasons: 1) the fact that they would be considered primary sources, and 2) the venue the work appeared in, despite the fact The Horror Review debuted on the WWW in March 1999, and, thanks to its buyout by Journal Stone Publishing, continues to remain online. If I thought writing online reviews for horror films was noteworthy (personally, I do, but professionally, even I'd give pause if that was someone's only source of notoriety) then I would have submitted a Wikipedia page for Mr. Gurnow several years ago. But, I waited until he had two books out, one (the Snowden book) that received respectable coverage, and another (his novel Nature's Housekeeper) that is finally starting to generate some much-deserved (in my opinion) interest.

I agree with Kraxler that “notability is not established by name-dropping or attention-seeking,” but it is often established via writing, especially if several of those works have been published, either online or in print. Gurnow has done both – the former, extensively; the latter, minimally. And, obviously, it seems to be Gurnow's scarcity of availability in the latter medium that has precipitated this entire circumstance. By the interpretation of Gurnow's supporters, evidence abounds as to the subject's “notability”; however, according to the opposition, this is not the case, despite the fact they have failed to provide any significant evidence to support their stance, only reiterating the “lack of notability” issue that prompted SnowdenFan to apply a “broken record” comparison. Besides the repetition provided by the opposition, other weaknesses in their argument have surfaced. Granted, it's been a couple of decades since I took my Rhetoric & Critical Analysis class in college, so I'm a little hazy on all the fallacies, but I do believe that Tarc is guilty of the ol' Poisoning the Well ploy, or at least some form of Ad hominem. So far, the only quality debate in this entire discussion pertained to the IP address of “M. Gurnow” and his “request” for deletion. For argument's sake, let's say that the actual subject did post that message (I, for one, have no reason to believe he didn't). Considering the fact that Gurnow provided the link to the Rachel Johnson article that mentioned her incident with Orange Mike, who, as we all know, is the one who placed the Gurnow article on the deletion block, it leads me to wonder if this “request” was really more of an acquiescence. In short, perhaps he (Gurnow) saw his situation akin to Peckinpah's doomed Wild Bunch – why fight a bloody battle you know you're going to lose, even if the cause is a justifiable one? – and he didn't see the purpose in expending his energy on it. But, like The Wild Bunch, there are some of us (high five, SnowdenFan) who don't mind getting a little bloody, even though we already know we're going to lose this one.BrocktonBomber (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Good point, BrocktonBomber. The discussion's went from "Why is Gurnow notable?" and you and me addressing the prompt time and again, only to be met with the facepalm of "Name dropping doth not make a subject notable"  (the implication being, apparently, that the Wiki names that have applauded, reported on and hosted Gurnow shouldn't have their own pages), all the way down to the no-no of a personal attack by an admin on my username.  We all know what type of finger-wagging would ensue if a mere editor would have done the same to an admin (Tarc, if you'll notice, until now I let slide the fact that - clearly - I've contributed to numerous topics and even created two pages, none of which are Snowden related; I suppose if I'd have went with "RockiesFan," my baseball edits would come into question - contrary to Wiki rules, you're suggesting that who is saying something is more important that what's being said).


 * Returning to the topic at hand, Wiki policy strongly advises against relisting an AfD over and over using the ruse of "needing better consensus" just because an admin doesn't like the current tide of debate. Aside from deck stacking, this is because - and Wiki acknowledges this - it is hard and time-consuming on editors like us.


 * I'll admit that Gurnow isn't Stephen King or Tom Clancy, but he nonetheless clearly qualifies by Wiki standards. I believe this article is prime for an appeal in the next few days due to the obvious motive in the admins' repeated relisting, name-calling and what remotely smells of sock puppetry, cf. look at the time stamp on Krax and Trac's most recent comments (then check the user histories:  Tarc logged in and out just to make the comment), and/or in-house meat puppetry, cf. this page went uncontested for nearly 2 months after its creation and - after the first week of casual debate which didn't spark any admin's interest other than the nominator - all of a sudden a large number of admins have jumped in (this after the nominator up and disappeared from a page that he posted the AfD on, a page which he avidly participated in its debate prior to its relisting...).  An appeal will also hopefully get more eyes on what's taken place here, say nothing of perhaps bringing it to the attention of a Steward or two.  SnowdenFan (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is, of course, laughably absurd; I have been around this project for ~10 years as has Kraxler from what I see in the creation logs. You may go pester the Stewards to your heart's desire, but seeing how both you and "BrocktonBomber" are for all intents & purposes single-purpose accounts, I'd be wary of an unfortunate rebounding there. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, as you clearly noticed, I already filed the request so, for your sake, I hope you're right. As for Boomranging, if BB and myself were one-in-the-same, would I have stuck my neck out with the request...?  user:BrocktonBomber, Tarc is aware of this as well and quickly admitted he has multiple accounts, stating "I also edit under the accounts "Jimbo Wales", "Willy on Wheels", "HAGGER", and Grundle2600" cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reaper_Eternal   SnowdenFan (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tarc is Jimbo Wales? Do you know who you're talking about? Please check out Irony. Kraxler (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Of note admin Bearcat just browsed the page and, not only did he not deem it in need of deletion, he took the time to spiffy up some of the citations. SnowdenFan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bearcat removed two duplicated citations. Kraxler (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Look again, they are still there, he simply understood the repeated bibliographical information from the matching, earlier citation wasn't necessary (originally inserted so no one would ask for validation).  SnowdenFan (talk)
 * Amended above. Kraxler (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, Krax, that you'd edit your previous comment from "removed citations" to "removed duplicated citations" once I said something so as to look as if you'd done your homework the first time (as you note, decade-long editors do have an image to uphold) and, as you noted (I wasn't going to say anything), yes, Tarc admitted to assuming the name "Jimbo Wales" on Reaper Eternal's talkpage. SnowdenFan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read Irony? Kraxler (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Aside from it being one of a suspicious number accounts, I think the use of "Jimbo Wales" has less to do with irony and more to do with implication when confronting newbies. SnowdenFan (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Outdoor Writer's Guild award-winner Chris Townsend, who is gear editor for The Great Outdoors and author of The Backpacker's Handbook, just posted a review of Gurnow's latest book: http://www.christownsendoutdoors.com/2015/08/book-review-natures-housekeeper-eco.html. SnowdenFan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Personal blogs are not reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Just as there's a difference between an official website and personal blog. Chris Townsend's review, just as Daniel Quinn's, appear on their official websites, not XXXblogger.com or XXX.wordpress.com  108.234.142.52 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, here's a bit of irony for you to chew on, then; "christownsendoutdoors.com" is hosted by blogger.com. Tarc (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Irony, yes, in that you - a veteran Wiki editor - think you can make a false statement and no one will fact check what you've said: ChrisTownsendOutdoors is hosted by Google - http://www.whoishostingthis.com/?q=christownsendoutdoors.com Talk about your Bad Faith edits... SnowdenFan (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My dear, blogger.com is owned by google, so what I said was quite correct. I think it's time to develop some other interests within this project, as this article is headed towards deletion.  Better luck in the future... Tarc (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not the creator of the page; merely a person attempting to highlight the fact that, by Wiki standards, the article is valid. No more, no less.


 * Back to the topic at hand: Not sure why there is an emphasis on how a notable name recognizes a subject so long as it can be validated, cf. the book review appears on Townsend's official website (and not even under Townsend's blog link...)  SnowdenFan (talk)


 * Actually, you're both right. Townsend's site is "powered by Blogger.com" (scroll to the bottom of the page on Townsend's site) which is "an online service owned by Google" (http://www.wikihow.com/Start-a-Blog-on-Blogger). BrocktonBomber (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per reasons cited by Kraxler, E.M.Gregory, and particularly by Tarc, who succinctly hits the nail on the head. Searches do not show notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sad that Wiki scholarship is dependent on how various search engines calibrate their algorithms to weave through SEOs/header tags since the implication is the first hits are the most relevant given that Gurnow's citations are online for all to see, cf. the article itself, you merely have to go beyond Page 1 to find them which, in essence, is the sole purpose behind Wiki references - To eliminate the need to filter through a subject's social media, pages advertising a subject's product, etc., and highlight the "relevant" materials pertaining to the topic heading.


 * Returning to the broken record, let's review: Has Gurnow attracted independent, third-party recognition by numerous (Wiki) notable names?  Check.  We have Pulitzer-winner Roger Ebert, Discovery Channel's Les Stroud, former Oprah guest and million-copy seller Daniel Quinn, Britain's Mountaineering ambassador, Chris Townsend, alongside Gurnow having been the guest on several recognized radio programs by hosts such as Mancow Muller, Howie Carr and Jeff Crouere, say nothing of Kevin J. Williams, director of the documentary Fear of a Black Republican, having conducted an extended interview with him for Politisite.  This translated, anthologized author has not only written two international bestsellers, his essay writing has won numerous awards, been on the cover of a handful of national magazines (Fifth Estate, American Atheist, etc.) and is included in the EBSCO database.  None of this should need to be said because it's been made clear for all to see on the article page itself.  SnowdenFan (talk)
 * Did you read WP:BLUDGEON? Very interesting essay. Kraxler (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply Just because something is listed as a blog does not, in and of itself, constitute the validity and/or accuracy of its information. Case in point, The Tone Zone: The Official Raybeats Tribute Page, is on WordPress, yet it is, as the name conveys, the official information source for the band, endorsed by its surviving members, who contributed greatly to the site. I mention this because several years ago I made a contribution to Wikipedia using information from this site. A Wiki editor quickly removed the citation due to its source's origin (WordPress), despite the fact the information I used did not come from a blog posting but from the historical content on the site. (In fact, if you ever visit the site, you will notice that the comments sections have been disabled for the majority of the pages.) I bring all this up to draw attention to the fact that the creation of the Internet has rewritten – and consistently continues to rewrite – the book on what constitutes a reliable/valid/notable source. As I mentioned in a previous post, Gurnow wrote hundreds of film reviews for The Horror Review, a site that would, more than likely, be considered to be lacking notability, especially since it doesn't have its own Wikipedia entry. Yet, ironically, the site is older than Wikipedia, having debuted in March 1999, almost two years before the launch of Wikipedia in January 2001.

I did read WP:BLUDGEON. Alas, SnowdenFan may feel the need to keep hitting the point home due to the fact that the opposition keeps failing to address it adequately, which, in turn, has created an unappealing turn of events, which even Drmies foresaw (i.e., “this unattractive discussion is not likely to get better-looking."). But, then, maybe decreasing the level of the discussion's attractiveness was the point for its extension all along. After all, why else has this “discussion” entered its fourth week, despite not being officially extended? After reading WP:BLUDGEON, it became obvious to me that a well-written argument is not the issue with an ultimate decision regarding deletion, but, instead, it hinges on a casting of votes. At this point, it stands 2 (to keep) against 6 (to delete). (I'm excluding the deletion request by “M. Gurnow” due to the speculation regarding the source's authenticity.) Again, as I stated earlier, we (the 2 keep votes) knew all along we were going to lose this one; the writing was already on the wall long before Tarc's “[b]etter luck in the future” comment. BrocktonBomber (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

BrocktonBomber is right. Though Tarc may very well be proven to be correct that this article gets 187'd - at this juncture - it would be due to votes (which Wiki states is not the test of an article's live-or-die status), not the reasoning behind why it isn't valid since, as BB notes, the Bludgeon citation^ is unmerited: I (as well as BrocktonBomber) have been obligated to repeat myself because editors are submitting grievances which, time and again, have already been addressed and reinforced through citation (say nothing of being present in the article itself).

^ Irony of ironies (since, Krax, you seem fond of the term) - You have mentioned this twice amid having posted 10 times in 6 days since you entered the conversation. Returning the f.y.i. favor, you might find the article The pot calling the kettle black interesting.

SnowdenFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I never posted any WP:Walls of text, and I never acuused anybody of being a sockpuppet, let alone well-known editors of several-year-long Wiki presence. Kraxler (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In respect to walls of text: Sacrificing analysis for brevity is poor editorializing, i.e., quantity at the expense of quality (but it boosts the number of edits, getting a person that much closer to getting bragging rights of a new editing star, right Krax?).


 * As for the insinuation that age/tenure guarantees moral purity...well, as we all know, more than one heralded Wiki editor has been caught red-handed: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2042333_2042334_2042575,00.html.


 * As I stated, and BB observed (and, by all means, accuse me of bludgeoning once more since, again, you're asking me to address a topic that has already been discussed...), it seemed odd that after the initial AfD listing ended in a vote of 2/2, a flock of nay-saying admins appeared on the scene after the article was relisted, hence my mention of a stacked deck, meat puppetry and the need for an investigation by way of appeal. SnowdenFan (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.